So.... I've played a couple of games recently using a true chess clock format.

In a nutshell:

• Fischer clock real-time game
• Initial Time: 15 minutes (one game), 10 minutes (the second game)
• Delay Time: 0 seconds (you never recover time)
• Clock Limit: 15 minutes (one game), 10 minutes (the second game)

In other words, each player has their own *game* countdown timer. If someone runs out of time, regardless of how well they're doing, they lose.

The main idea behind doing this is to have a fast game (max game length would be the total of the two timers) ... i.e., with a 15 minute timer, the max game time would be 30 minutes. With a 10 minute timer, max time would be 20 minutes.

As a bonus (in my view), this format *also* provides a carrot for continuing the game, even if you're behind. Not only can you still get your card set bonuses (which can sometimes turn even the most horrific tide), but if your opponent runs out of time, you still eke out a win.

I played the first game with 15 minute limit, and lost handily (I was first, WarriorMentor played second. Crushed me in 9 rounds) - I had 7m43s remaining, and he had 9m33s remaining (i.e. I played for 7m17s, and he played 5m27s.)

I played the second game with a 10 minute limit to see how that ould work out. This time I played second. Once again I was being crushed (I lost Oz early, which was a major nail in the coffin), and we went all the way to round 12. I was down to 1 unit on one country and .... my opponent's clock ran out. (That didn't go over well.)

Based on that LIMITED sample size, my observations are:

• Speed game -- enjoyable from the standpoint of not worrying about slow-playing in a 'lightning' game, and a guaranteed max time limit for the game.
• Time limit --- I'm thinking 12-15 minutes would work well. The 10-minute limit can be *too* harsh (as noted, my opponent timed out on the verge of victory; I still had 4m0s on my clock)). The 15-minute game went a full 12 rounds, with lots of time to spare for both of us. So... maybe around 13 minutes would be good :-)
• Game naming --- In both games, I tried to make clear that it was a real chess clock, by naming the games as "!!REAL!! 15-minute chess clock!" (or 10-minute :-)), and adding a first comment about the nature of the clock. HOWEVER (and I anticipated this might be the case) in one of the games), those either were not seen or not understood, leading to justifiable confusion and dissatisfaction. IF there is interest in a true chess-clock Real-Time game format, how best to convey that? (Or maybe have a new category created --- Lightning, Fischer, and Chess -- to make it absolutely clear from the beginning.)

Any thoughts?

i don't see any issues with a chess icon for a new game clock. i kinda like the idea of that type too tbh.

but i also don't have much sympathy for someone who doesn't look at the time options of a Fischer game. you have those settings && a disclaimer in the messages for those who join after, then...

You need to be careful about the board. Playing Civil War would basically guarantee that whoever moves faster wins, you simply won't have time to eliminate an opponent in 10 minutes. Maybe in 15, I still think most games would go to time.

On WGWF and other fast boards I'm sure it can be fun. It's not for me and my slow connection, though.

Whether we need a ned icon I can't say, confusion will likely ensue anyway as it's not something people are used to.

Good point about the chess-clock idea with respect to various boards.

I agree that there are some boards where the chess clock would be totally inappropriate -- it might be worthwhile if the clock could be limited to specific boards and possibly have a minimum time that could be set for those specific boards.

For example, the WGWF board (and others with similar numbers of territories and rules) could operate well with the clock I suggested (around 12-15 minutes). Boards with far more territories but the same basic rules (e.g. Collossal Crusade) could work with the clock, but with a much higher minimum.

Then you get into boards like Invention, Civil War, etc., where it probably wouldn't work so well :-)

If the idea of having ChessClock as a Realtime game clock setting turns out to be something in which people are interested, a first useful cut might be to scrape the board for real-time games and enable the clock for the more popular boards that are represented, and as a slightly-more tricky exercise, during the scraping, determine how much time is actually spent on average by players in those games (time calculated from the moment a player actually clicked 'Apply' to the moment their turn ended, and then adding a fudge-factor to account for the time spent placing armies) and use that as the minimum (or near-minimum) chessclock value that coudl be set.

Good point about the chess-clock idea with respect to various boards.

I agree that there are some boards where the chess clock would be totally inappropriate -- it might be worthwhile if the clock could be limited to specific boards and possibly have a minimum time that could be set for those specific boards.

For example, the WGWF board (and others with similar numbers of territories and rules) could operate well with the clock I suggested (around 12-15 minutes). Boards with far more territories but the same basic rules (e.g. Collossal Crusade) could work with the clock, but with a much higher minimum.

Then you get into boards like Invention, Civil War, etc., where it probably wouldn't work so well :-)

If the idea of having ChessClock as a Realtime game clock setting turns out to be something in which people are interested, a first useful cut might be to scrape the board for real-time games and enable the clock for the more popular boards that are represented, and as a slightly-more tricky exercise, during the scraping, determine how much time is actually spent on average by players in those games (time calculated from the moment a player actually clicked 'Apply' to the moment their turn ended, and then adding a fudge-factor to account for the time spent placing armies) and use that as the minimum (or near-minimum) chessclock value that coudl be set.

I think the chances of Tom doing something like this are probably small, but if you are interested in pursuing further, I think you could add a page to the wiki about this. Then on that page explain the idea and make a table with boards you think it would work well with and have a recommended time or minimum/maximum length that you think would be reasonable (or all three) for the board. You could link people to the wiki page in the discussion in the game to help promote the idea.

I think people would learn how to play quick on their feet with some experience. In a board with Civil War you might have to do a large drop of troops with a string of attacks and then hit end turn to limit your turns to around 20 seconds, instead of thinking out the most optimal movement of troops.

In actual bullet chess players will not give themselves too much time to think for the best possible move but will often quickly go for moves that look OK and at the very least won't blunder to catch up on time.

Your opponent who ran out of time was probably just not accustomed to playing that type of game. Us players who have been here for a may think its silly for someone to not understand the fischer clock settings, but I know from experience that new players can really struggle with the interface. I had to show my co-worker how to create a game on the "normal" map, how to get to a board's page to read up on the rules, where to find the games where it is your turn. Some of it seems self-explanatory, but newbies can get lost here pretty easy.

Agreed :-)

I've now played a whopping 3 games - one 10min, two 15min. I like it :-)

The main thing if playing this way is to be *absolutely* sure you aren't going to be disrupted for up to 2x(personalclock) minutes :-)

I would love to play one but the sound notification for when a game has started has not worked for me in the past. So I would likely check back on the the wargear tab and see that the game is already over.

pretty much need to be focused on the single game only (no jumping around), or have it up on a window of its own :-)

I love this idea, even played one by setting up the Fischer clock at 10m/0m/10m on WGWF and enjoyed it, though strategy would suffer a bit as the need for speed increases. You'll also see players who have no chance to win focus on just running around for long enough to outlast their opponent.

Abraham the Mage wrote:I love this idea, even played one by setting up the Fischer clock at 10m/0m/10m on WGWF and enjoyed it, though strategy would suffer a bit as the need for speed increases. You'll also see players who have no chance to win focus on just running around for long enough to outlast their opponent.

It definitely requires a bit of a mental shift :-)

As for opponents running around to outlast ... I have no problem with that, it's just another factor everybody has to consider. And I kind of like it, because I pretty much *hate* winning games where people surrender at the first sign that things are going poorly. Heck, I actually enjoy the games I've lost where my opponent has had a last-minute stroke of incredible luck and reverses the game. :-)

Usually I'd agree, that's how I win in lightning chess, but it just seems a bit sacrilegious to Risk to win simply because of that.

Abraham the Mage wrote:Usually I'd agree, that's how I win in lightning chess, but it just seems a bit sacrilegious to Risk to win simply because of that.

:-)

I get where you're coming from. But on this site alone, there are hundreds of variants of RISK, with lots of rules and bizarro effects that you have to be aware of.

In this variant, victory should and will go to the player with the dominant position in most cases, but if that player fails to keep his eye on the ball (or more specifically, the clock), it's his own fault if the scrappy underdog wins.

In a way, it would be slightly analagous to a massive country invading a much smaller country, then losing simply because they overextend themselves to the point that their effort collapses, leaving the smaller country the victor simply by virtue of their tenacity.

Note --- in this variant, the ways I could see that a player will survive by running like crazy (or by hunkering in place with a solid wall while mining for cards behind the wall) is if the dominant player spends too much time thinking or, in the case of the 'mining behind the wall' scenario, completely devastates everything on their side of the wall and then can't break the defender's wall, meaning they have to rely solely on their per-turn allocations and no new card sets.

In any case, it's just another way to approach the game to add some pep for those who want to get in a *truly* fast game.

Definitely. I've played a few of these, and really enjoyed it. Looking forward to seeing it as an official addition to the site hopefully.

One thing I've noticed is that no-one seems to check clock specs before joining games, and when they invariably lose because they run out of time, they tend to accuse the creator of cheating.

been that way since we started having clock choices. not much we can (or really should IMO) do about it, unfortunately.

weathertop wrote:been that way since we started having clock choices. not much we can (or really should IMO) do about it, unfortunately.

Yes there is.

We can:

• Politely remind them that they need to check the settings before they join, and graciously explain how things work if Fischer is new to them.
• Laugh at the ones who complain evem after they have been educated.

:--)

agwyvern wrote:weathertop wrote:been that way since we started having clock choices. not much we can (or really should IMO) do about it, unfortunately.

Yes there is.

We can:

• Politely remind them that they need to check the settings before they join, and graciously explain how things work if Fischer is new to them.
• Laugh at the ones who complain evem after they have been educated.

:--)

So true. I usually try being polite in public, but sometimes they get so mad. . . it's pretty funny

HAHAHA! I saw what prompted your post :-)